Thank you. I do appreciate that.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
There has been some concern that because the May 2020 OIC was passed via an OIC, it is subject to the laws of Parliament and it is below the law of Parliament, whereas an act of Parliament, which is what this proposed amendment would be doing, puts it on an equal step with other parliamentary laws.
If the government were to set the precedent that they're going to ban these firearms in legislation, would that preclude their need to provide a statement, as I mentioned, in 117.15, that they believe this is not reasonable for use in hunting? Would they no longer need to provide that justification if they were to pass this through legislation?